« Should Prisoners Be Allowed To Vote?
Jesse Ventura Discusses Politics on Larry King Live »



Hillary Clinton Told Richardson “‘Barack Obama Can’t Win’ (UPDATED)

April 2nd, 2008
By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief


riririr.gif

A new ABC report sheds more light on the spirited exchange between Senator Hillary Clinton and Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson when Richardson called Clinton to tell her that he was endorsing rival Senator Barack Obama: Clinton insisted Obama could not win the Presidency:

ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos Reports: Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and former President Bill Clinton are making very direct arguments to Democratic superdelegates, starkly insisting Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., cannot win a general election against presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Sources with direct knowledge of the conversation between Sen. Clinton and Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., prior to the Governor’s endorsement of Obama say she told him flatly, “He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win.”

And herein lies what will be called the fatal flaw of the Clinton campaign if it fails — that is, besides former President Bill Clinton being accused of playing the race card or losing it in front of California Superdelegates: the Clinton campaign’s main focus now seems less on arguments for Hillary Clinton, her ideas and what she can do for the country than constant pounding on negative themes about Obama.

To be sure, she is presenting some solid proposals such as her economic plan:

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton returned to Pittsburgh on Wednesday and proposed $7 billion a year in tax incentives to encourage U.S. companies not to outsource.

At the IBEW facility on the city’s South Side, Clinton announced to a few hundred supporters the details of her so-called “insourcing” plan to eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, and use the savings to encourage job creation.

But the campaign’s key thrust has evolved into stop, discredit and dismiss Obama rather than Clinton making the case in public and in private why she should be the overwhelming choice to be chosen as the Democratic nominee in terms of her qualities and ideas.

Meanwhile, with James Carville’s comments about Richardson being a “Judas,” and Bill Clinton turning red-faced and sputtering when the subject of the New Mexico Governor’s name came up, Richardson replied directly to Carville and the Clintons in a Washington Post op-ed in a piece titled “Loyalty to My Country.”

Among other things, he suggests Bill Clinton was not accurate in saying he ever promised to endorse Hillary Clinton — and he portrays Carville and by implication the Clintons as relics of the politics of personal destruction and partisanship of the 80s and 90s. Some key sections:

This was a difficult, even painful, decision [for former Clinton cabinet member to endorse Obama]. My affection and respect for the Clintons run deep. I do indeed owe President Clinton for the extraordinary opportunities he gave me to serve him and this country. And nobody worked harder for him or served him more loyally, during some very difficult times, than I did.

Carville and others say that I owe President Clinton’s wife my endorsement because he gave me two jobs. Would someone who worked for Carville then owe his wife, Mary Matalin, similar loyalty in her professional pursuits? Do the people now attacking me recall that I ran for president, albeit unsuccessfully, against Sen. Clinton? Was that also an act of disloyalty?

And while I was truly torn for weeks about this decision, and seriously contemplated endorsing Sen. Clinton, I never told anyone, including President Clinton, that I would do so. Those who say I did are misinformed or worse.

As for Mr. Carville’s assertions that I did not return President Clinton’s calls: I was on vacation in Antigua with my wife for a week and did not receive notice of any calls from the president. I, of course, called Sen. Clinton prior to my endorsement of Sen. Obama. It was a difficult and heated discussion, the details of which I will not share here.

And here’s his blazing finale:

I do not believe that the truth will keep Carville and others from attacking me. I can only say that we need to move on from the politics of personal insult and attacks. That era, personified by Carville and his ilk, has passed and I believe we must end the rancor and partisanship that has mired Washington in gridlock. In my view, Sen. Obama represents our best hope of replacing division with unity. That is why, out of loyalty to my country, I endorse him for president.

Indeed, these are the sentiments that polls show many independent voters share — that it’s time to move American political campaigns out of personal attack and personal destruction mode into an era with a more substantive and less personalized discussion of big issues. A quaint idea but, then, all things go in cycles.

Cartoon by Nate Beeler, The Washington Examiner

UPDATE: A new Rasmussen poll echoes what we have said here many times: Bill Clinton is sandbagging his reputation in his battle to win the White House for his wife:

Bill Clinton has campaigned aggressively on behalf of his wife during Election 2008. Forty-three percent (43%) of Americans believe that his behavior during the campaign will hurt his reputation in history. Just 17% believe his reputation will be helped while 29% say it will have no impact.

These views are found across demographic and partisan lines. Among Democrats, just 22% believe Clinton’s campaigning will help his reputation while 41% believe just the opposite. There is virtually no gender gap on the issue—17% of men and 17% of women believe he has helped his reputation. Forty-six percent (46%) of men and 41% of women hold the opposite view.

Among African-Americans, 11% say the former President has helped his reputation while 43% say he has hurt his legacy. For White Americans, 18% believe he has helped his reputation while 45% take the opposite view.

Younger adults are less pessimistic about the impact when compared to their elders. Among the youngest adults, those under 30, 27% say Bill Clinton has helped his reputation while 40% say he has hurt it. Among senior citizens, those numbers are 11% and 48% respectively.



This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 2nd, 2008 at 7:27 pm and is filed under Democratic Party, Bill Clinton, Independents, Newsweek Blogitics, Negative Campaigning, Elections, Barack Obama, Independent Voters, 2008 Elections, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Cartoon Commentary, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 10 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    David Gergen on 360 said that some said that the Clintons and their surrogates were sending semi threating emails to Richardson before he decided to endorse Obama.

    Also, I don't understand the clinton logic. Obama is ahead in votes, states and delegates. He is beating her. So, how does she figure she is the stronger candidate against McCain....
    • ^
    • v
    Well, Sen. Obama CAN'T win. Should he be my Democratic Party's nominee, we will get the worst drubbing we've had since I began voting in 1976. You know what? We'll deserve it.
    • ^
    • v
    I think the question then becomes how do the clintons KNOW he can't win? And why do they argue that when Hillary Clinton and her husband are now evolving into one of the most polarizing couples in America. If the tone of this campaign is any foreshadow of what a Clinton administration is like, all of us independents, Democrats and Republicans who have bemoaned the divisiness and bitterness of the Bush-Rove era are in for more of the same -- and perhaps the Democrats will hold the White House for only one administration. Why does it stand to reason that Obama can't win yet Hillary Clinton can win despite all of her and her husband's baggage? The REAL story is: BOTH candidates are going to face a brutal campaign with McCain being advised by Roverand other Bush administration political operatives.

    So, no, Hillary and Bill using the mantra "Obama can't win" doesn't mean it's going to be cakewalk for Hillary Clinton who will create Republican unity faster than Sean Hannity can read another RNC talking point.
    • ^
    • v
    The good man loves his wife.
    • ^
    • v
    vwcat said: "Obama is ahead in votes, states and delegates. He is beating her. So, how does she figure she is the stronger candidate against McCain...."

    HRC's argument: Because the GE will not be polling just Dems in primaries and caucuses (where party organization as opposed to numbers count) but the whole voting population.
    For example: lots of Dems shrug off Wright and the whole issue of patriotism...but not so among GOP and even many Indep...where this plays as more troubling.

    But as Joe says, many GOPers are apoplectic about the Clintons...and while they may not like McCain...will pour in money and anything they have to do to stop a reprise of the Clinton era.

    McCain is behind in money, and his organization is patchy...but after another month or so of this...he may be easily the more electable of the 3 despite the best efforts of Left Bloggers and the NYT.

    BTW: HRC's economic proposal on outsourcing is GREAT! Can anyone point me to a site contrasting economic proposals of the 3 candidates?
    • ^
    • v
    Why, why, why do I still have to point out that if Hillary is elected President we will have a minimum of 24 years that the White House has been in the control of TWO families. Almost anyone is preferable to HRC just to end the dynastic string that has occurred since Reagan left office. A democrat is better, but regardless not a Bush or Clinton needs to be the President.
    • ^
    • v
    joe said: "I think the question then becomes how do the clintons KNOW he can't win?"

    Duh, Joe, they asked Holly...
    • ^
    • v
    Holly likes things the way they are now. She loves the partisanship, nothing getting done and the U.S. being subservient to and kissing Israel's backside no matter what.

    To condense an important point that Joe made, if I may, NOTHING unites Republicans like a Clinton. She'd most likely lose and even if she didn't we'd have a president just like the one we're all anxiously awaiting to get out of the White House. Personally, I can't deal with another 4 - 8 years of Bush Lite (McCain) or The Decider in a pantsuit (Clinton), who like Bush, values loyalty above all else and will invite Whitewater & Lewinskygate, the Sequel into our lives (The Republicans will go from hating investigations & accountability to fully embracing them again). This country desperately needs a smart, competent and inspiring leader with fresh blood, not owing their soul to the current Washington establishment who believes in transparency, accountability, bipartisanship and can help effect real change in this country (and to translate that for Holly, that means Obama).
    • ^
    • v
    "Why, why, why do I still have to point out that if Hillary is elected President we will have a minimum of 24 years that the White House has been in the control of TWO families. Almost anyone is preferable to HRC just to end the dynastic string that has occurred since Reagan left office. A democrat is better, but regardless not a Bush or Clinton needs to be the President."

    Exactly.
    • ^
    • v
    Senator Clinton can still win. In fact, she has about the same chance as Obama right now. She can and should get the majority of the superdelegates. Don't believe the hype coming out of the Obama camp. They are increasingly desperate as it becomes clear Rev. Wright will be a bigger problem in the general election, as will Rezko, and those two problems just aren't going to go away.
    There is no "dynasty" with Hillary. She's not related by blood to Bill, she's just his wife. And so what? It means she has more experience than Obama, because she's already been in the White House. And there have been family members who were presidents before that were not disastrous like John Adams and his son, for one example.

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Should Prisoners Be Allowed To Vote?
Jesse Ventura Discusses Politics on Larry King Live »

By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.